The Things I Will Never Understand
As a budding film critic, I talk with people about movies. A lot. Being a critic can be a bit like living in Los Angeles: If you're not careful, you can lose perspective and think that all you know equates with all that needs to be known. So I talk to people about movies, what the like, what they've seen, what they want to see. And without fail, and concerning a wide variety of films, they say this to me on a regular basis:
"It doesn't look that good, but I'll probably see it."
This is the most bizarre thing you could possibly say to someone who cares about movies. I used to brush it off, but the statement's mix of dismissiveness and passivity — an acceptance of inferior quality as well as some assumed duty to see the movie anyway — has been haunting me for years. It's wholly different from hoping a film will be good but finding it isn't. That cycle of anticipation and disappointment is common among moviegoers. But saying a film looks bad but then admitting that you'll see it anyway is an acknowledgment of an awareness of a film's likely poor quality, followed by a resignation that patronage is still somehow required. At first I thought the idea didn't make sense at all. Then I remembered that this is America.
Decrypting the statement hinges upon two things: (1) Mass media serves as a common emotional background for Americans, uniting us in a nostalgia we all share without having to meet one another. And (2) most people set the bar so low for entertainment that they expect to be let down, and have come to view this not merely as a likely outcome of taking a risk on (even pop) art but consider it — the disappointment — one of the primary functions of movies or TV.
The first point is way easier to understand because it's something we actively talk about. The members of every generation are now united as much by what they see as by how they were affected by major sociopolitical events: Yes, the citizens of Generation Y can remember where they were on 9/11, but it's also not uncommon for them to insert (for instance) quotes from Anchorman into conversation. Film is something everyone can see and use to relate to others, and that ability to bond via pop culture references has made movies into something people often feel they need to see not to experience art but to keep up with the jokes of the day. It's a vital way to stay current.
But the second part — the concept that viewers expect movies to be bad just because they feel they're supposed to be that way — is infinitely more treacherous, confusing, and revealing. By feeling chained to the series of blockbusters, comedies, and action movies headed their way, viewers have come to value immediacy over artistic fulfillment, which is unfortunate because a staggering amount of mainstream films, the ones that offer themselves up as cultural touchstones, are bad. And these movies are bad for the same reason people see them: They exist simply to be known, and not to entertain or uplift or terrify or thrill. They want nothing more than to be the latest thing to be seen, and viewers know that, and they buy tickets regardless.
Movies unite people. Viewers want to be united, no matter the cost. Filmmakers know this. Viewers know that filmmakers know this. Repeat.
It can't be a surprise, then, that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen earned a little more than $60 million just in its first day, setting a record for the highest-grossing Wednesday and likely on its way to much, much more. Michael Bay's sequel to the 2007 film, both based on a line of Hasbro toys from 20 years ago, has a 21% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes and is at 36 out of a possible 100 at Metacritic. Are the critics wrong to find fault with the film? No. Should they be concerned at such an ideological divide between their camp and the general moviegoing masses, if there is one? No. Should they — we — be worried? Yes. Because people aren't seeing this movie to enjoy it, or like it, but out of a sick and misguided feeling that they should unless they want to run the risk of being left behind. We have to change that.
And now, on a related note, @kiala reviews the new Transformers:
Comments: 6
If you go to a action flick and have low expectations, no biggie. But I do usually want a backup reason like "Oh I love films with robots or have a soft spot for Shia" etc.
But if that's what you say 90% of the time, than perhaps you should be schooled on the history of cinema and learn what good films actually are like!
I was faced with a similar dilemma today when discussing Twilight with my friend.
She is frightened easily (as in a trailer for a scary movie will give her nightmares) and didnt grow up with tv or many films. So when we see movies together, we usually watch something campy and lighthearted.
Thus, I was half worried when watching a bootleg dvd of Twilight with her today.
Not only did she like, she said it was a good film!
I'm like this is a slap in the face of my entire respect for films and (film degree)! Her reasons were I loved how romantic it was without sexualizing everything like "supposedly all films about teens do" (wtf?)
I'm like the story is weak, she spends half the time researching about whether he was a vamp and the rest running from some vamps! No movie there! But all she can say is I liked it and it makes me think that perhaps vampires are real!
She's far out because of her unusual upbringing (all fine art and intellectual atmosphere in Manhattan) and because gems like her thinking Twilight was great spill out of her mouth.
ps. Twilight isn't as horrible as I thought but still by no stretch "good". Transformers 2, more plot than the 1st and only watchable due to my personal soft spot for robots and action films. It's summer, I like seeing shit blow up.
Personally, I hate "I'm going to go see it so I can make fun of it" even more, which is the reason most of my more frustrating friends have given for when they want to go see crap like Twilight.
And, yes, Twilight is just as horrible as you thought it was, possibly far worse. If people keep supporting that crap, the standard will keep falling lower and lower, until people won't remember that there was literature that wasn't poorly written pablum or films that weren't half-assed adaptations thereof.
Sometimes I go into a movie thinking it will be bad but end up surprised at how much I enjoyed it ("Twilight," by the way, is one of those movies). Other times I just want to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt. But I'm a filmmaker myself; I like to learn from other filmmakers' mistakes.
I was willing to lose 2.5 hours of my life to Michael Bay's appalling monstrosity of a movie because, well, the kid in me wanted it to be great, and the filmmaker in me wanted to know how and why it could be so mind-numbingly awful.
When someone says "It doesn't look good, but I'll probably see it," the truth probably is that they really do think it looks good but they're afraid to admit it.
I'm mostly with Eric... people are probably just uncomfortable with admitting it, or unable to quite string together a decent justification for wanting to see bad films.
Personally, I'm fine with the "I don't care how crappy it is... the economy's in the shitter / I hate my job / my family's crazy / etc. I just want to turn my head off and watch something asplode, even if the plot sucks, acting sucks, writing sucks... I want spectacle for spectacle's sake so I can forget about real shit, at least for a couple of hours," explanation.
Actually, I use that a lot. But not for Transformers 2. Fuck that nonsense.
This is kind of old, but it popped up on Facebook and I felt the urge to comment anyways...
This whole writeup is really making something out of nothing and feels needlessly pessimistic... You are saying some movies are good and some movies are bad. And that's all. But really, there are personal preferences (genre, cast, storyline), ethical stances (movies with offensive language, nudity, gore, racism), and I guess even a viewer's mood to take into consideration.
I don't like horror movies.. They bore me and I like to laugh... If I say I don't want to see Saw, it's because it doesn't fit my style. But if I do in fact go to see the newest Saw, I am not simply giving in to the mass media. I could possibly be in an especially adventurous mood and need to see something extreme, going with friends to get out, or even just bored of watching my favorite comedies. Hell, maybe I'm just in the mood to see some folks die.
Transformers was a pretty decent movie. Graphics were pretty good, storyline kept me interested, the cast seemed to interact well. The sequal needed to push the envelope. I personally thought it was going to be too much and I am pretty sure I said 'It doesn't look that good, but I'll go see it'. Why? Because I didn't want my friends to be quoting a movie and not know what they were talking about? To avoid being left behind? That is silly. I seen it because I wanted to see where the storyline went from the previous movie which did so well in my opinion.
As far as these movies you speak of that are released to simply be released..... Let's not forget that movies are an art and are very similar to music for example. People write songs, make movies, and even act in movies because it's a passion. I've written songs and put them online knowing that they weren't going to be classics and hit radio jams. Who's to say any artistic efforts need to meet your demands?
I have personally given up on the critics when it comes to movies. Maybe because they are so damned pessimistic. Or maybe because watching movies for them has gone from a being a hobby to an actual job.
I make every person over the age of 12 who saw that movie explain to me their reason for seeing it. If they're not convincing enough, they get punched in the throat.
"Nostalgia" was good enough for the first one, but not this time around.
Jun 30, 2009 6:38 AM